Do you have a cogent argument for how it becomes the case that any creature could begin thinking about their own previous thought and belief? All timekeeping presupposes that. — creativesoul

I did include a citation about biological clocks. I don't see how that presupposes or requires 'thinking about own previous thought and belief'. Yet another caveat added in order to exclude other species.

As best we can tell, time keeping practices were existentially dependent upon naming and descriptive practices. — creativesoul

From what can you tell that? Stonehenge? Obelisks? Athens' Tower of the Winds? They don't say much, except that humans have been keeping public time since the beginning of civilization. those practices may have been named and described. Before that, humans had to depend on our own sense of when to wake, when to eat, when to move to the summer camp, when to hunt, when to preserve food for the winter. Whether anyone named that or not, we don't know.

Dogs are always in the moment and unreflective. — creativesoul

Now, there is a bald, naked, unsupported statement.
you can have it. I'm done here.

That's only one among many factors, but I understand it really is a deep seated fear for her, and knowing that in particular, I'm not much inclined to challenge her views. — wonderer1

We were the same with my sister-in-law. She had MS and clung to her faith till the very end. We could see that it was a comfort to her and were careful never to challenge it. Even took her to church a couple of times when she was visiting, even though... Well, we took her shopping and brought her KFC buckets, too: whatever made her life a little brighter.

I thought it was the same young woman in both - possibly with father and mother. In a religious community, obviously. If the father had been a bully, she would not have argued with him while she was dependent - you do not talk back! But she might try to assert herself, once she was out of the house. That would also give us a better perspective on why she'd give in to the mother - who had shared in her oppression over the years, and is still under the yoke, to which she has capitulated, while the daughter escaped and carried a burden of guilt for her desertion.

Yes, i think we're probably reading too much into it, bringing too much of our own experience to it. But, what the hay, isn't that what poetry is for?

I do know the other one, too: the drip, drip, drip of guilt, of shaming, of turning your best impulses on you as weapons. — Vera Mont

Sorry to hear that. — Amity

Oh, not directly. My father was a bully, nothing we could do about that. But my mother equipped me with some resistance to the guilt and shame thing. She made fun of it, so my brother and I learned to make fun of it. But I did subsequently witness how it happens to others. Usually through religion, which encases the very young child in a waterproof shell: he's helpless for fifteen years or more. The even more insidious form is smothering 'love' - sustained and unrelenting emotional blackmail.

the young, male doctor couldn't understand or empathize. "But it's only a dog!" — Amity

A Dog for Jesus
(Where dogs go when they die)

I wish someone had given Jesus a dog.
As loyal and loving as mine.
To sleep by His manger and gaze in His eyes
And adore Him for being divine.

As our Lord grew to manhood His faithful dog,
Would have followed Him all through the day.
While He preached to the crowds and made the sick well
And knelt in the garden to pray.
It is sad to remember that Christ went away.
To face death alone and apart.

With no tender dog following close behind,
To comfort its Master’s Heart.
And when Jesus rose on that Easter morn,
How happy He would have been,
As His dog kissed His hand and barked it’s delight,
For The One who died for all men.

Well, the Lord has a dog now, I just sent Him mine,
The old pal so dear to me.
And I smile through my tears on this first day alone,
Knowing they’re in eternity.
Day after day, the whole day through,
Wherever my road inclined,
Four feet said, “Wait, I’m coming with you!”
And trotted along behind.

by: Rudyard Kipling

The same wish goes to that doctor.

However, I find it troubling that it is not even included in the Poetry Foundation website. Only the part concerning the Man. — Amity

That's just wrong! If you're going to print a poem, print the whole thing - else, desist.

And often asks her not to yell

That's the gist of it for me, the power trip. If he 'raises his voice from time to time', it's because she's being obtuse and exasperating; if she does, she's strident or hysterical. I know this story well enough.
I do know the other one, too: the drip, drip, drip of guilt, of shaming, of turning your best impulses on you as weapons.
Yes, it is excellent as two halves of a whole.

Here's one I recall tearing me up in Gr 10 - and each I've come across it since:

There is sorrow enough in the natural way
From men and women to fill our day;
And when we are certain of sorrow in store,
Why do we always arrange for more?
Brothers and Sisters, I bid you beware
Of giving your heart to a dog to tear.

Buy a pup and your money will buy
Love unflinching that cannot lie--
Perfect passion and worship fed
By a kick in the ribs or a pat on the head.
Nevertheless it is hardly fair
To risk your heart for a dog to tear.

When the fourteen years which Nature permits
Are closing in asthma, or tumour, or fits,
And the vet's unspoken prescription runs
To lethal chambers or loaded guns,
Then you will find--it's your own affair--
But...you've given your heart for a dog to tear.

When the body that lived at your single will,
With its whimper of welcome, is stilled (how still!);
When the spirit that answered your every mood
Is gone--wherever it goes--for good,
You will discover how much you care,
And will give your heart for the dog to tear.

We've sorrow enough in the natural way,
When it comes to burying Christian clay.
Our loves are not given, but only lent,
At compound interest of cent per cent.
Though it is not always the case, I believe,
That the longer we've kept 'em, the more do we grieve:
For, when debts are payable, right or wrong,
A short-time loan is as bad as a long--
So why in Heaven (before we are there)
Should we give our hearts to a dog to tear?

Rudyard Kipling - The Power of the Dog

That's an interesting poem. It presents two ways in which people who seek and apprehend a truth are browbeaten and silenced 1. through authority and 2. through social/emotional pressure.

When I was about six, I greatly admired an uncle who could whistle any tune he liked. It was difficult to figure out, but I eventually taught myself the rudiments - got much better, once my permanent teeth came in. My father told me to stop that noise! My grandmother told me that when she hears a girl whistle, the Virgin Mary cries. I'd seen pictures of that soppy woman with her eyeballs rolled up and heart stuck out in front of her tunic, and I thought, "Let 'her cry!" But I sure didn't dare whistle when my father was home.

If Part 2 is disregarded, it's partly because the emotional one is a less compelling reason to desist: the one who has a truth reflect back on the aggrieved person responsibility for their own grievance. Against authority, you have no such recourse.
And partly on aesthetic grounds. The second poem is a little too long and repetitious to make the same impact. It reflect the way that social/emotional pressure may be brought to bear, over time, on a child, but how easily it may be resisted by an independent adult.

Surely a rational reason for friendship turns the friendship into something else - a transactional, conditional relationshiop? — Ludwig V

It is. If you wish to deny that, you can use the excuse of irrationality. Me, I prefer to be befriended, as I choose my friends, for positive qualities and for compatibility of temperament and interest. Friends expect sympathy support and respect from one another; that makes it transactional.
I also terminate a relationship in which I feel cheated, exploited or betrayed. So, yes, it's also conditional.
It's the same with 'falling in love'. Do it irrationally, and you end up falling out again - in the usual case - and Shakespearean tragedy in the worst. In the spectrum between are unhappy marriages and emotionally scarred children, as well as happy accidents where crazy attraction leads a stable relationship.

Surely, the irrational is two-edged - or perhaps, in itself is neither - it all depends on how irrational and what the irrationality leads to. — Ludwig V

There is a line, which may look very faint and fine from some perspectives, between the non-rational (that is, emotional) component of interpersonal relations and the irrational (contrary to reason). Emotions and instinct can augment rational decisions; unreason undermines them.

And then there's Hume claim that "reason is, and ought to be, the slave of the passions" and his fact/value distinction. — Ludwig V

And how did he demonstrate this in his own life?

What is love and how do we know when we are loved? — Athena

There are different types and flavours and degrees of love.
They all begin with regard: some particular person is more significant to us than other people are, for some particular reason. That person is somehow special.
Parental love begins in ego: This is my offspring, my DNA, my legacy. But then the baby becomes a separate individual, who is special because... of its vague unfocused eyes, its ultra-fine hair, its smell, its velvet skin, its tiny hands curling around our finger (that makes most fathers gaga from day 1) its total helplessness and need of care and protection: it makes us heroes. And then love grows and expands in milestones, in challenges, frustrations, accomplishments, hardship and sorrows as the baby grows. Love changes over time, over the development of a new, increasingly autonomous individual. It's never the same from day to day and yet is constant from year to year.

Filial love, fraternal love, friendship, all go though changes over time. But they are all grounded in regard for that other person who is special to you for some particular reason.
Romantic love goes through changes, too. Sometimes it dies young, because its roots were shallow. Sometimes it lasts a lifetime and beyond, because its roots are deep: because the other person is special for reasons fundamental to your own well-being and happiness.

How do you know if you are loved? How does the other person treat you? Do they make you feel small and stupid, or interesting and accomplished? Do they support your ambitions or applaud your failures? Do you trust them with an embarrassing secret? If you called them at 3am because you're stranded at a closed mall due to your own foolishness, would they come to get you?

Oh gosh. That is in dire need of argumentative support. I have no reason to believe that that's true, as written. Bald assertion is inadequate. — creativesoul

It's not all that hairless:

The brain is an efficient machine in orchestrating temporal information across a wide range of time scales. Remarkably, circadian and interval timing processes are shared phenomena across many species and behaviours. Moreover, timing is a pivotal biological function that supports fundamental cognitive (e.g. memory, attention, decision-making) and physiological (e.g. daily variations of hormones and sleep–wake cycles) processes.

Bald assertion conflicting with known relevant facts is completely unacceptable.

Which relevant facts are those? From what source can you be certain that early hominids did not have a sense of time? If they did not, why did they not miss it for so long, and then suddenly, with the onset of civilization, perceive a need to devise instruments for measuring time?

Humans charted stars, planned voyages, recorded seasons and all sorts of other things long before inventing clocks. — creativesoul

Not really. Humans had been been measuring time for quite a while before those other innovations.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/keeping-time-at-stonehenge/792A5E8E091C8B7CB9C26B4A35A6B399

Horology—the study of the measurement of time—dates back to 1450 BC when the Ancient Egyptians first observed the earth’s natural circadian rhythms. They divided the day into two 12-hour periods and used large obelisks to track the sun’s movement.

Planning routines, instead of just being a part of them, is a time keeping practice. Dogs don't do that. — creativesoul

Probably not. But maybe that's because they're constrained by their people's work-leisure schedules, rather than the requirements of nature. The vultures in my area are staging for winter migration, holding exercises to make sure all the year's fledglings are flight-capable. The squirrels are very busy, hiding chestnuts and acorns. It's evening; the raccoons are preparing to forage, the salamanders and chipmunks have retired to their hidden nests. A coyote pack somewhere is assembling for the hunt - I hear their calls - but they must wait till moonrise.

Dogs do not think about their own expectations as a subject matter in their own right. — creativesoul

I only read their actions. You read their minds. Uncanny!

Thinking about one's own thought and belief requires first having them, then becoming capable of isolating them as a subject matter in their own right — creativesoul

But having them doesn't require reflecting on them or isolating them or deciding what their rights may be.
Dogs don't need to do that; they're not riddled with self-doubt.
(that last one is as bald as Patrick Stewart)

No, the dog knows when their human is about to arrive but has no clue what time the arrival happens because the dog doesn't practice timekeeping. — creativesoul

The dog practices timekeeping in exactly the same way humans did before the invention of clocks. The dog knows when it's time to wake people, when it's mealtime, when it's time for various family members to leave the house and arrive home again, what time the newspaper and mail arrive, when it's time to go for an evening walk and when it's bedtime for children.

You neglect some very important distinctions. — creativesoul

These are manufactured distinctions with no meaning that I can attend to.

I know other things, and "this" follows from those things. — creativesoul

Ditto.

Our image of a perfectly, or even just excessively, rational person is not a compliment. The complaint would be that they are emotionless, too like a machine, without understanding of those endearing irrationalities that makes us all human. — Ludwig V

I don't think irrationality - thinking contrary to factual information, as in ideological zealotry, or baseless prejudice, or self-destructive delusion - is particularly endearing. We humans who are supposedly in possession of the only rational mind in the universe, are capable of profound and catastrophic irrationalities. But we don't have to indulge them. Most of the time, most of us respond in rational ways to mundane, practical events and interactions; most of the time most of us make mundane, practical, rational decisions about ordinary matters. Otherwise, all our lives would be in constant chaos. Most of us can be emotional, empathic, kind, compassionate, generous, curious, spontaneous, insightful, irresponsible, angry, sad, confused, frustrated, ignorant, lazy, careless, spaced out, or off on flights of fancy without becoming irrational. Yet all of us get away with being irrational sometimes, because we have strong familial and community support networks, and some of us can be irrational in groups, because they're armed and hard to resist.
Most other animals don't have that luxury.

The rest is available for learning, memory, language, culture, skill acquisition, storytelling, convictions, wealth accumulation, altruism, invention, emotional complexity, deceit, social bonding, philosophy, ambition, superstition, delusion and madness. As well as reasoning and assessment. — Vera Mont

But all that is not rational thinking. Rational thinking requires critical thinking and we would have an extremely short lifespan if all our awake time was also our critical thinking time. — Athena

Reasoning and assessment are rational thinking, that require some degree of critical thinking. So do the accumulation of wealth, invention, skill acquisition and deceit. And yet rich people, academics, scientists and con artists do not have noticeably shorter lifespans than janitors, navvies and assembly line workers, who are not required to expend very much brainpower for their work - and the majority of whom are unlikely to be chess champions or ingenious puzzle solvers in their spare time. I

Yes, it's true that some types of thinking require more energy than others, as complex mental tasks, like problem solving or learning new information, activate more brain regions and demand a higher level of neural activity, resulting in increased energy consumption compared to simpler thought processes like daydreaming or routine tasks.

Indeed. Yet occasional bouts of intense thought don't shorten one's life, though they sometimes lengthens one's afternoon nap or elicit a strong craving for ice cream. Not all critical thinking is complex problem-solving and learning new tasks. A lot of rational thought is simply choosing what to cook for dinner, whether to walk or take the bus, which air conditioner comes with a better warranty, or what to wear for a date? All decisions are either rational or irrational, but only a few are intellectually challenging.
We all need both intensive thinking time and down time. Humans have resources other than critical thought: instinct, intuition, memory, imagination. None of them need to conflict with observed fact or rely on blind faith - iow, we don't need to be irrational in order to daydream or perform routine tasks. We can be irrational, even though we have language and mathematics, access to information we did not personally collect, and critical faculties that we can engage at will.
But that doesn't mean we need to be irrational most of the time, or that other animals can't be rational even though they have no human language, math or databases.

It seems you never surprised yourself with new revelations or ideas impacting you or changing ways of thinking? — Amity

I don't know if I could use the word surprise: for me, change in direction and opinion have been gradual processes, rather than revelations, though I have had the odd little eureka moment when disparate strands of information came together and something made sense.
I was, as mentioned, very lucky in my female relatives - mother, aunts and grandmothers who never made me feel insignificant or deficient. I was lucky to come to Canada when I was young enough to assimilate (that's down to a father who otherwise was not much of an asset), lucky in a good, fair public school system and some wonderful teachers, lucky in the second half of the 20th century. My cohort experience one of the best moments in western history - perhaps the best.

I didn't know you had a Blue Willow Collection. — Amity

I don't. I have a white elephant of a Herendi set. The story begins in England in 1819, soon after Turner and Minton introduced that pattern, with the hanging of the Cato Street Conspirators. One of his daughters inherits the tea service. It travels with her to the New World, and is passed down from mother do daughter.

Is your novel a series of linked short stories? — Amity

No, they're all single continuous narratives, but the last two are told from three different characters' point of view, set in three different locations. That was a new challenge.

I know that it is a good idea to keep a back-up. However, I rarely do this. And it would 'hurt' in terms of time, energy and space. — Amity

I copy everything - now, after I had a couple of good scoldings - including works in progress on a memory stick, so it doesn't clutter up my regular files (which I have enough trouble finding my around.) Techno-klutz, me, but lucky again in my choice of life-mate.

The pins are out — Amity

A call to arms from a comerade usually so mild-mannered and generous cannot but be heeded!

Was it always like this for you? Or was there a time as a beginner when you felt the strangeness and anxiety of finding yourself in your writing?
When the unconscious or subconscious meets the conscious...if you understand what I mean? — Amity

I don't think there was such a time. I made up my first poem before I could write and I told stories to my pets, relatives, playmate and little brother since I can remember. No anxiety at all back then; sublime confidence. As an adult, I often fretted over the right tone, cadence, structure, word choice, concision and precision, but not nothing I can identify as 'finding myself'. I guess I never felt lost or obscure or confused - I even have a pretty good idea where my dreams come from. I've often wondered whether I'm just shallow.

Perhaps you always had a strong sense of identity. In the past, there were no obvious gender issues. And I can see how they aren't a necessary part in a story. — Amity

That's a much more positive perspective. My characters, straight and gay, don't have any doubts of their identity: it wasn't required for the stories, and I wouldn't know how to convey that convincingly.
(I admit, though, that on forums up until this one, I'd been content to let people assume I was male, to avoid the tedious condescension.

However, many strong women fighting for their rights suffered through centuries of well, I won't go on...you know history better than I do. You've lived through it! — Amity

I did some mild activism for the cause - among others. (Nothing courageous. The Greenpeace guys thought my only possible function was to stuff envelopes, make coffee and keep quiet. I didn't stay long.)

What 'Blue Willow' story ? The only story I can recall about a woman is 'Dawn'. — Amity

It's in the same collection with Dawn. A grandmother recounting the 200 years witnessed by a family heirloom. I doubt it would interest anyone but Canadians.

I don't see how there can be no passion or urge involved when it comes to the effort required to research. Or at least, enjoyment. — Amity

The core message can be important - or frivolous - and I do enjoy the process, including research, organizing the material, constructing the plot, and I love stage-setting. I really enjoyed working on sets in amateur theater, as well. I suppose because it crosses media; I like construction, painting and drama.

I'm right with you on organizing humans and human activities. I couldn't be a director, administrator or team leader.

If it is not about your interests, hopes and dream worlds, then what is it? — Amity

Oh, it's always that. I just meant that I don't get so emotionally invested in a story that I agonize over it. It's more an intellectual exercise for me.

I'm thinking of reworking the Blue Willow story to include more details of Canadian women's history as well as more of the narrator's personality. But it's already quite long, and I'm not up for the intensive research a novel would require, so I keep shelving it. No great passion; just weighing options.
Of course, that may be a matter of age: I can't make long-term commitments.

If a literary challenge is presented, poetry or prose, I'd like to participate -- unless it's a format in which I feel hopelessly incompetent.

We owe a lot to our good teachers. I was lucky to have several outstanding ones.

Something a bit like that happened to me on the Gr. 13 English final. They gave us a dozen titles to choose from, one of which perfectly fit a story I was already writing in my head. By the time I finished, there were only a few minutes left for the other questions. I answered less than half of them, and was sure I'd get a lousy mark.
I got 96%. My teacher liked the story so much, she wasn't bothered about the grammar and structure questions. She even invited me to a summer course in creative writing. (Couldn't go; had to get a job. I'm still sorry I missed it.)

I can't imagine writing in anything but solitude. (Except cats; there's always cats around.) I hate being interrupted. But then, my stories are not personal or profound; they're just stories.

I rather liked the poem idea, too, but there may not be enough participants who can both master the form and remain faithful to the spirit. It sounds like quite a challenge.

But a lighthearted story form, or epic poem with no very strict rules of verse structure - I guess I mean an epic doggerel - might be fun, and plain old storytelling is even more accessible. That, I know people around here can do well!

That sounds wonderful. And I wonder....

I didn't appreciate it at the time. I remember feeling disturbed but don't ask me why. — Amity

I think I know why. She's held up some mirrors we'd rather not look into. And she could be devastatingly funny. In my literary firmament, she's up there with Atwood, Lessing and Kingsolver.

Same thing with the poem Sempre. It doesn't read like much but it made me question my own female/male aspects or qualities. Or should that be feminine/masculine? — Amity

That's a topic I have never been inclined - or felt qualified - to approach. That's probably why I didn't understand that poem. I write a lot of male characters, and sometimes express their feelings and attitudes toward women, but I get the information from outside, as it were, from observing how people behave and listening to how they talk about one another. I don't deeply identify with gender.

Now that is something I'd like to hear more about! Witches are fascinating. — Amity

Oh, she was a nasty piece of work! Not my creation, but I had a chance to tweak her, and all the other characters, a little bit. A Dark and Stormy Knight, written on a philosophy forum, now long defunct, by six different posters on three continents, who didn't even know one another's real names.
It started as a challenge: Here is an opening paragraph; write the next paragraph. The story emerged over several weeks and took some amusing turns.
The OG and I were major contributors, and when the forum shut down (Sad, that! Its founder, a clever and good young man, died of cancer.) OG kept up a real-world correspondence with woman who started this story. All three of us really liked it and wanted to keep it alive. So we got in touch with the other contributors and asked for permission to edit (me) and publish it. I tried to be faithful to all of the characters the others invented - except the king, but I had already sabotaged him on the open forum and Shadowfox, who had intended him as a villain, forgave me - eventually. Anyway, she was happy with the final product.
Agrona the witch was the OG's contribution, so we had a free hand with her character and her fate. She had a broomstick, could do some heavy magic, was guilty of murder ... but she loved her daughter... sort of.
You can see why this was so much fun to do.

Here is a little quote from a Fay Weldon novel, Rhode Island Blues that I'd like to share for no particular reason.

At night, lying next to me, he would sometimes sigh heavily in his sleep, and I would feel my heart almost break for him, but there is no healing the world's grief, of which he had no more than his share. I really cannot understand why we are born with such a capacity for it. But there is always cinema, to take us out of ourselves.

The character is a film editor. It could as easily have been said of literature by a book editor. I do appreciate Fay Weldon!

What has it do with rationality? Everything. If they have a concept of time in the same way that we do, that's at least a basis for rationality. — Ludwig V

I'm not so sure. If snails and spiders have it, it's more likely biological; no thought required. Where thinking comes in : level 1. association of a time of day or year with some event or activity (like: crocodiles are sluggish before sunrise, winter's coming soon) 2. taking certain specific time-dependent action (drink at the river while it's safe; start migration exercises) and 3. anticipation of time-related events (getting to the river before the elephants churn it up; making sure one's own fledglings are flight-capable) 4. arranging other necessary tasks not to conflict with time-related ones. (this is a little more complicated, depending on each species, but it still doesn't need a lot of intelligence.
In fact, timekeeping is one of the least remarkable things intelligent entities do.

Crucification, or a wife and children? Surely there must be something less punishing than both those extremes. — Tom Storm

Not for the son of a deity got on a mortal. Look how the Greek gods treated their illegitimate children!

According to one apocryphal account, Jesus did run away - to France, I think, with Mary Magdalene - to live out his life under an assumed name and have kids. If I were Jesus, that's what I would do.... and hope the Old Man Upstairs wrote me off as a loss.
Anyway, he didn't create anything, nor did the Holy Ghost. Jesus cured a few sick people and killed some innocent pigs, but other wise, his entire assignment was to preach and get killed.

I have copious notebook scribblings to refer to - so many it gets confusing, so I organize it and five minutes later I lose track again, frantically paging back and forth, "Why can't I remember what those little shrubs are called?" I got so exasperated with that one, I had a character say it.

It was perhaps quixotic, but I was thinking about the argument about whether the dog knew it was 5 pm when the train arrived. I thought of Pavlov's dogs who knew it was feeding time when the bell rang, — Ludwig V

All dogs know their feeding time, without any bells. Every living thing has time sense and arranges its feeding, resting and moving routines according to the time of day, and to time elapsed and to correspondence with some other event - like this is the time their preferred prey is most vulnerable; this is the time salmon come to spawn; this is the time to bury nuts for winter; this is the time lions don't come to the water.

Humans have it too, a biorhythm or something similar. When not freed from the economic day/week/year constraints, we each follow our own internal clock: wake up at roughly the same time every day; get hungry at regular intervals, have a period of three or four hours when we are most alert and capable, followed by a period when we drag a bit. There is some variation among individuals, but all humans are diurnal and seasonal. (Some humans may claim to be nocturnal, but it just means they stay awake longer past sunset and sleep later into the morning. Some humans are active at night for economic reasons - and it's not good for their health. It's difficult to sleep in the day and arrange leisure activities around a night shift. A few humans are active at night because it' the only time they have free of other people's demands.) That's the framework on which they constructed the artificial daily, weekly, monthly and annual schedules of regimented societies, because that's what works for the majority of human activities.

Several Star Trek shows are about human judgment that is not based on rational thinking — Athena

Usually decisions that turn out to be wrong. "An alien machine you don't know what it does? Beam it aboard!"

and I don't think Star Trek fans are in favor of AI ruling over us.

Don't be so sure. Anyhow, it wouldn't rule - that's an ape thing. It would simply administer our resources and enforce our laws - both of which tasks humans have botched repeatedly and abominably.

Rational thinking requires critical thinking and we would have an extremely short lifespan if all our awake time was also our critical thinking time. — Athena

Yet another criterion. The more requirements you add, the fewer entities may exercise a faculty that was once available to everything in possession of a cerebellum.
All thinking animals can act rationally, emotionally, instinctively or chaotically (when they're ill). I very much doubt that thought processes take different amounts of energy to perform.

Are there any particular aspects of creating a planet that stand out? — wonderer1

The hardest part for me is language. I needed a large dry and a smaller wet planet that humans could colonize and where they would develop differently. What would they live on? What seeds would they have brought from Earth and what local fauna and flora would they have adapted? Every one of those items needs a name that relates back to an earth language but has changed over time. And the characters have to use these words in natural conversation.
Since I knew the origins and history of my colonists, I had a cultural base from which to extrapolate social organization, beliefs and mores.
The most fun parts were mapping Wisconsin and Oceania.

The most fun part of any book is when it's finished, the OG and I design a cover together. They may not be world's best designs, but they entertain us for hours.

The most fun project I ever had was a collaborative medieval 'fairy tale', with kings and knights, a dragon and a witch. Had to learn about armour and castles.

I don't know how you keep sane! Of course, you could get AI or that chatty person to help out - perhaps even write the story for you?! — Amity

Writing stories is one of the ways I keep sane. World-building takes a lot of time and thought, but there is something quite magical in immersing oneself in an imaginary place, climate, scenery, culture, inventing people, dwellings, food crops... You get to be a deity of sorts. My OG chivvied me into writing a sequel, because he wanted to live in Ozimord again.
Google Earth is a wonderful tool; last year, I vicariously travelled a large part of the far east by land and water and became intimate with the topography of Wisconsin.
Have not even poked my nose into a chatty site; I'm not ready for a relationship with AI; holding out for HAL 9001.


Re dogs vs cats. We used to have both in our household and they got along just fine. One pugnacious young tom would get into fights. If he couldn't win, he'd lure the opponent to our yard and our Newfoundland dog. A gentle soul, she would never hurt a cat - just gently put her enormous paw on him, while her own cat scuttle away. Another time, we had a part Siamese cat and two small black dogs. The dogs' favourite entertainment was to tear up Kleenex and spread it all over the room. We would hide the tissue way up high on a bookshelf or cupboard -- and still, somehow they got hold of it. So one day my mother and I left the house and crept around to look through the window. It didn't take long for the cat to climb up and throw the box down to the waiting dogs. Then she yawned, folded her arms and watched them tear it apart - a joyous scene.
Yeah, pet stories.... Sigh! I miss Sammy! She used to sleep or just lounge in a flat box on top of my computer while I was writing. Kraken is no fun anymore - he's off living his own outdoor life - and the orphan kitten is just a baby.

I'm about done with the rational animal thread; seven times around the same stunted mulberry bush is enough.

Suppose the dog has learnt to read the station clock or at least to get up and start some preparatory tail-wagging when the clock says 5 - are you sure that they are incapable of that? — Ludwig V

What have clocks to do with rational thought? For 100,000 years of intelligent human development no clocks of any kind existed. Up until four hundred years ago, the entire population of North America was clock-free, and very possibly the healthier for it.

All the world is not accessible to you, even while the observed and recorded behavior of (some) animals, is. What is not included in the observed and recorded behavior of animals, is that which is the cause of it, which we as humans consider rational thought. — Mww

Well, there's me in my place. That which is accessible to you regarding other humans is not accessible to me regarding other animals. Even if you have never seen that human in the flesh and even if I had close personal acquaintance with animals.

Dogs do not have that. — creativesoul

I wonder how you know this. Or what difference it makes to rational thinking.

Read the next bits. — creativesoul

yes:

The dog knows when the human is about to arrive, and it is perfectly rational in doing so... but it does not know what time the human is expected to arrive. — creativesoul

When but not what time. Because he doesn't know the names humans have artificially given the hours and minutes of the day. Okay.

and therefore of course he’s accessible to me; I got a tv. — Mww

So have I. All the world is accessible to me, including the observed and recorded behaviour of animals in the wild. And that's all you can know of Putin, too.

To know of a thing, is not the same as to know the thing. Do you see that if you’d asked if I knew Putin, I’d have given a different answer? — Mww

Indeed. I was answering:

If something is inaccessible to us, we cannot know of it. — Mww

We can know of, and quite a lot about, many things that we can't access directly.

If another’s capabilities or subjective experiences were sufficiently accessible to me, they wouldn’t be merely implied. They would be, or could possibly be, demonstrably given. — Mww

But you don't accept experimental demonstrations as true. And so cannot be certain of anything.

The dog does not recognize the sound of it's human's car. — creativesoul

Sure he does. Even the dumbest dog knows the sounds and smells of its people and their stuff.

The dog, after being reminded of past events - by virtue of being amidst much the same spatiotemporal events - begins to form, have, and/or hold expectation that the human will be there. In doing so the dog begins getting anticipatory excitement in a happy sort of way due to the lifelong loving connection the dog and human have. — creativesoul

You're using more words to describe: dog expects human's arrival. 'Spatiotemporal' - yes, he knows where and when. I can't characterize that as even one of the multitude of alternate explanations.

I'm not saying that the dog's behavior is not rational. I would say that it most certainly is. — creativesoul

Yes. So, then...?

It is only after becoming aware of the fact that we can be wrong about stuff, that we can become hopeful - in the face of that uncertainty. — creativesoul

That's a pretty big bold statement about a wide-ranging emotion! What has our own fallibility to do with hope? It's not as if we had, before discovering our own fallibility, been convinced of being in control of the universe.

Compared/contrast that with autonomous anticipation and/or expectation without such metacognitive reservation. — creativesoul

You mean humans never rationally expect something that usually happens to go on happening on schedule? When a human goes to work on Monday morning, he doesn't merely hope, but quite reasonably and confidently expects his workplace to stand where it has always stood and function as it has always functioned. If it's lifted up by an alien police force and transported to the moon, he discovers his own fallibilty. If he and the workplace survive the incident, thereafter, he only hopes to find it in the usual place.
If the dog's human is taken to hospital during the day and doesn't return home for a week, the dog's reasonable expectation is reduced to hope.

This mistakenly presupposes that you are somehow privy to my fear(s)? — creativesoul

Nah, just citing a vague general human-centric fear. It was huge in the sciences for a century. the word 'looms' triggered it.

It is rational. The irony, once again. You're quoting my argument for how and/or why it is rational. — creativesoul

I'm still trying to figure out what it is you're arguing. Sometimes I seem to misunderstand it.

"No reason, really. It's just a Monday, ya know?" — creativesoul

What people say is not always candid, insightful or comprehensive. I know of no effects without a cause. It sounds as if they 1. are not aware of or 2. do not wish to investigate or 3. assume you already know the sequence of experiences that have contributed to this particular response to an anticipated and repeated situation.

Knowing what time a particular person is expected to arrive is to pick that time out from the rest. The dog does not do that. The dog knows when the human is about to arrive, and it is perfectly rational in doing so... but it does not know what time the human is expected to arrive. — creativesoul

I just don't follow the distinction here. Are there discreet points in the continuity of time that we have to identify and choose among? What increments, and how aware do we do have to be of choosing one? Or do we experience the passage of time as fluid, and of which we are sometimes keenly aware and sometimes lose track? I don't see how a dog should have to 'pick out' an item of time from among a group of similar items, as if it were a toy in a pile of toys. To me, minutes all look and pretty much alike; I could not tell them apart except by the events that take place during their passage.

But then, as you say, I don't understand your arguments. Logically, then, I should stop responding to them. I don't know how to disengage without seeming rude.

It depends on how big a god I was. Creator of life on Earth? Master of this galaxy? In charge of the whole Big Shebang?
I'll settle for the galaxy for now. My next project would probably be to terraform a whole bunch of planets and seed them with fast-evolving life forms that all have a decent chance of becoming human-like, so they can develop interstellar travel, trade and war with one another. Quite a lot of potential for entertainment there.

If something is inaccessible to us, we cannot know of it. — Mww

Do you know of a man named Vladimir Putin? Is he accessible to you?

But I’m not interested in possibilities logical inference affords, when I want the certainty implied by an answer to an empirical question, especially when I already have the certainty afforded me from my own rational thought. — Mww

Your implied certainty of another's capabilities is based on not being able to access intimate knowledge of that other's subjective experience?
Hnh...

I just came in here for a brief respite from fighting over animal intelligence.

I've read that setting is important when writing a novel. Indeed, it can be seen as a character. — Amity

I used to love the TV series Ballykissangel, in which the village was possibly the best character.
In my own work, I pay attention to the details of setting; consider it important not to have lily of the valley blooming in September or long shadows at 1pm or a piano in a poor man's cottage, and of course, I had to put quite a lot of details in the manor where a quasi historical romance took place. But I had not considered the location very important until I attempted SF. Do you know how much research and meticulous planning goes into inventing a planet? Damn real, it becomes a character: it haunts your dreams for months on end.